On Lying: A Moral Guide Based Upon Lombard’s Sentences. Part VIII: What is the Falsehood in a “False Oath?”

Last updated on: March 18, 2009 at 4:00 am by Henry Karlson

On Lying: A Moral Guide Based Upon Lombard’s Sentences. Part VIII: What is the Falsehood in a “False Oath?” 2009-03-18T04:00:17-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Part I Part II

Part III Part IV
Part V Part VI
Part VII

Lombard next turns to perjury, the swearing of false oaths, and he finds here many new questions which must be raised, such as: how are we to understand it when someone swears that they will do something, intending to do it, but ends up not doing so? How are we to understand those who are forced to swear an oath which they do not agree to? Would it be perjurious to say something is false if one believes it to be true? How are we to understand someone who, intending to lie under oath, inadvertently speaks the truth? One who swears an oath adds obligations to what they should or should not say, and so the moral issue is a more serious concern that what has been brought up so far.

Making sure the reader understands that perjury happens when one lies under oath, Lombard opens up with the question, would it be perjurious to say something under oath, believing what one says is correct, but in all actuality, it is not? That is, does the fact that the statement itself ends up being untrue make it perjury, since the word perjury means to “make a false oath”? The Master of the Sentences suggests that some, following what Jerome wrote, think this would be the case. Jerome indicated three things as necessary for a proper oath: “truth, judgment and justice.”[1] With such a definition, since what is said is not true, even if the person did not intend to lie, what they said would still be classified as perjury.

Other authorities reason out the issue differently. Indeed, it is possible that some form of equivocation is going on, because of the multiple meanings implied by the word, periuro. Thus, Lombard brings in what others have said to this question. They suggest that as long as a person makes an oath, says what they believe it to be true, or what will be true (when discussing the future), the oath was not taken under false pretenses and therefore should not be seen as perjurious. For them, this would explain, for example, the words of St Paul, where he said he intended to visit Corinth, but did not do so.[2] What he said was not a lie; he said what he thought and hoped he was going to do at the time of writing his letter. St Paul was deceiving no one. It would also not have been perjury if he had said it under oath, for, “if he had added an oath, he would have sworn the truth insofar as it was in him, even if it turned out otherwise than he said.“[3] According to these authorities, the falsehood associated with perjury is associated with the false presentation of one’s views, not, however, whether or not what they say about things is actually correct.

And so the question which has been raised by these approaches is this: when is an oath a “false oath”? Is it a false oath because the words are not true, or is it a false oath because the one who says it intends to deceive someone else by saying it? The first, of course, would open up many other questions, such as, if one intends to deceive, but says what is correct, is it perjury? Nonetheless, we must see that what is shown here is the possibility that lying and perjury are not necessarily related. So we must ask, can one commit perjury without lying, and lie without committing perjury?

After stating the position of others, Lombard gives us his own take on the matter: perjury occurs when one swears, knowing what is true, and says what is false, or when they swear something to be true when they believe it to be false, or when they say something is false when they are not certain as to what it actually is. Lombard makes it known that for him the issue is with the presentation of what one knows, or believes, to be the case; but, as we shall see, this does not mean that he thinks the issue of justice is unimportant, nor that this is all that matters (he has brought in the issue of truth, since it relates to the way one states their knowledge, and he has brought in the issue of judgment, because he has stated that one can be perjurious when describing their opinions, or lack of them).[4] The last possibility Lombard admits is somewhat confusing: if a person says something is not the case, without having any firm belief on the matter, they are not exactly saying something which contradicts their belief, since they have no belief to contradict. However, because they are swearing something to be the case which they do not know or believe to be so, it would still be sworn falsely, and so Lombard indicates it would be perjurious, even if not a lie. “And so not every perjury is a lie, nor does every perjurer lie; but everyone who lies under oath is a perjurer, and everyone who swears a falsehood, whether or not he lies, commits perjury.”[5] Yet it would seem, contra Lombard, one could say they are lying, because, under oath, they could say they are not certain, and hold no belief, and if they do not present this, then they act as if they do have a belief, and that would be where the deception lies.[6]

Having suggested one could end up being perjurious without lying, Lombard raises the other side of the relationship between lies and perjury, can one lie under oath without committing perjury? If someone, under oath, says what is true, even if they do not believe it to be, would they be committing perjury? Here he is bringing out how odd it appears to say that someone swore falsely, if what they said were true. Nonetheless, that is exactly the case. This response has already been prepared for: one is to say under oath what they believe or know to be the case; if they lie, even if what is said turns out to be correct, because of the intent of the words was to deceive, they would have intended to misrepresent themselves and what they think, and so they would be committing perjury. Lombard stands firm with his belief that “to lie under oath is perjury.”[7]

But then, Lombard returns a previous question: what then are we to make of the one who swears to do something, intends to do what they swear, but ends up not doing it? Here, Lombard says that, until the time in which the action is said to be done, is not done, no perjury can be predicated to the one who made such an oath. On the other hand, once that time has come and they have not done as they said they would, or a time comes when they decide not to do as they swore they would, the oath is broken, and perjury has been committed. If one takes this back to the question of St Paul, where he stated he would visit Corinth, the fact that he intended to but did not, makes it not a lie; but if he had sworn he would come, and did not, then he would have sworn a false oath, and committed perjury. From this, Lombard wants his read to see that, “not everyone who swears what is false is a perjurer from the moment he swears,” because, until the time comes in which an oath can be tried, it cannot be said to be false.[8]

Footnotes

[1] St Jerome, In Ieremiam 4, 2, quoted in Peter Lombard, Sentences. Book III, dist XXXIX, c2.
[2] Cf. 1 Cor. 16:5 and 2 Cor 1:15 -24.
[3] Peter Lombard, Sentences. Book III, dist XXXIX, c2. He states that this is “the opinion of some on this matter” but does not state who these people are.
[4] The authority which Lombard uses to bring this out is, without surprise, Augustine, and he uses Sermo 180 as a central text for this thesis.
[5] Peter Lombard, Sentences. Book III, dist XXXIX, c3.
[6] Granted, my presentation here is an attempt to understand Lombard’s three-fold distinction, incorporating the fact that Lombard thinks the third case does not appear to be a lie; there is some unstated thought guiding Lombard’s presentation, and I’ve tried my best to ascertain what it is, using the context surrounding his definition to present that definition itself, but frankly, Lombard is quite obscure on this point.
[7] Peter Lombard, Sentences. Book III, dist XXXIX, c3.
[8] Peter Lombard, Sentences. Book III, dist XXXIX, c3.

Previous Post

March 17, 2009

Values vs. Worldviews

Next Post

March 18, 2009 On AIG and Autos

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What miraculous catch did Peter witness after obeying Jesus?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A boat sinking A gold coin A sea turning red A net full of fish